Singha Raja Kottai Rajus Arilmigu Kotthandarama Swami Koil vs The Commissioner, Rajapalayam Municipality, The Special Tahsildar and Town Survey Special Officer, Rajapalayam and The District Collector, Virudhunagar District

R. Sudhakar, J.—The appellant is the Trustee of the temple, who approached the Tahsildar for recording his name in the survey records

certain extent of land, which is the subject matter of the present dispute. The Tahsildar granted said relief under proceedings in

MU.mu.Me.mu.tha.pa.25/84, dated 29.02.1984. That remain unchallenged for more than two decades. Thereafter, the Special Commissioner for

Land Reforms and the Municipality, the respondents herein objected to the entry in the revenue records and they moved the District Collector. The

District Collector, on receipt of such representation from these two authorities, came to the conclusion that the record of entry by the Tahsildar on

29.02.1984 in favour of the appellant is erroneous and the land in question was only ""fpbusz;L buz;od; Bghpy; $hhp bra;aj; jf;f epyk;"";"" and it was

government land. The Collector found fault with the manner in which the Tahsildar granted relief in favour of the appellant. As a result, the order

dated 29.02.1984 passed by the Tahsildar was cancelled and the Collector ordered that the revenue records should show the entry as ""fpbusz;L

buz;od; Bghpy; $hhp bra;aj; jf;f epyk;"" and that order was challenged in the writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on

the premise that the order of the Collector is correct and that the petitioner can work out his remedy before the Civil Court and disputed question

of facts on title cannot be gone into in the writ petition.

The learned single Judge also recorded that as against the notice issued by the Municipality, the appellant had filed a civil suit for injunction,

which has been granted. It is therefore, for the petitioner to establish the title in the pending suit and the impugned order will not be an impediment

for such proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

The preliminary issue that was canvassed by the appellant before this Court is gross violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrariness in the

proceedings of the District Collector and that was a ground raised in the writ petition as well. The same legal issue has been raised in Ground No.

(a) in the writ appeal.

Nevertheless, we find that the impugned order does not speak about the granting an opportunity to the appellant. But, admittedly an order has

been passed by the Tahsildar in the year 1984 and the appellant has been enjoying the benefits of such order, for more than two decades.

Therefore, the Collector ought not to have passed such an order, without giving opportunity to the appellant to put forward his plea and rebut the

claim made by two authorities, who objected to entry in the revenue records. We find no reason to justify the order considering the above stand of

the appellant and legal plea. The proceedings of the Collector without following the principles of natural justice is at fault. The appellant is entitled

to relief and therefore, we are inclined to hold that the order is in violation of principles of natural justice and has to be set aside.

Mr. Parekh kumar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent raised an issue that even in the affidavit filed by the

petitioner, he has stated that he appeared before the Collector and submitted objections prior to passing of orders. Assuming without admitting that

such a plea is correct, we find that the Collector has not adverted to the objection raised and therefore, there is a clear case of non application of

mind and on this ground also, the order has to be set aside. The learned Single Judge has not adverted to this issue and the order requires to be

reversed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order dated 15.11.2010 made in W.P. (MD) No. 4404 of 2005 is set aside. The matter

is remanded back to the Collector for fresh consideration. The petitioner will be entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the matter is decided

afresh. Taking note of the objections that may be filed by the appellants, the Collector is directed to dispose of the whole issue within a period of 6

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving the petitioner an opportunity as stated above. The petitioner is entitled to raise

all the legal plea that is raised before this Court, before the Collector including the point of jurisdiction. No costs. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.